WASHINGTON – Legislation that could void hundreds of food-safety warnings in California and other states passed the House yesterday after heated debate.

The National Uniformity for Food Act, long sought by the food industry, would prohibit states from having food-contamination standards and warning labels that are stricter than federal requirements. Exemptions could be granted if the Food and Drug Administration determines they are needed and they “would not unduly burden interstate commerce.”

California, with its toughest-in-the-nation food-safety requirements, is a primary target of the legislation. Proposition 65, approved 20 years ago, requires warnings about chemicals that cause “cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” California also has filed lawsuits seeking an array of warnings, including on the mercury content of canned tuna and the presence of lead in Mexican candy.

Of particular concern to the food industry is acrylamide, a chemical linked to cancer that forms in starchy food cooked at high temperatures, such as french fries and potato chips.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has sued to force Burger King, Frito-Lay, McDonald's, Wendy's and other companies to warn consumers if acrylamide is present in their products.

The House approved the legislation 283-139, with most Republicans voting for the bill and Democrats leading the opposition. The bill could face a tougher challenge in the Senate, where individual lawmakers have more power to block measures.

Opponents of the legislation – including consumer groups, many state attorneys general and state food and drug officials – said it would affect warnings on egg safety, dietary supplement dangers and pesticides on produce. They noted that state and local officials conduct most food-safety inspections.

“They are the ones with the expertise. But this law will allow the FDA to invalidate state labeling laws and apply their own lower standards nationwide,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. “The consequences of this bill are going to be drastic.”

Advocates of the legislation said it was costly and confusing for food processors to deal with different state labeling requirements. They also argued that states could keep their regulations if they convince the FDA they are sound.

“Science is science is science. If we're going to protect pregnant women and we're going to protect children ... we ought to do it in all 50 states,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chief sponsor of the bill. “This is an interstate matter.”

Taxpayers would spend an estimated $100 million over the next five years so the FDA can consider petitions likely to be filed by states seeking exemptions, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Opponents of the legislation scored two victories yesterday. The bill included an amendment that would allow states to retain their laws requiring warnings about mercury in fish and a provision that would require federal regulators to offer “expedited” review of proposed new state food-safety rules.

Despite the bill's implications, it was brought to the House floor without a committee hearing, which would have allowed lawmakers to hear testimony from industry, government and advocacy groups.

“You wonder why the Congress would do its work in this way,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, accusing food-industry lobbyists of waging “a covert legislative campaign” that quietly rounded up an unusually large and bipartisan number of co-sponsors for the bill.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, countered that lawmakers knew more than enough about the proposal.

“This bill has been around for many, many years,” Boehner said. “There has been a lot of debate and discussion about this bill.”

In recent weeks, the debate became more public as Democratic and Republican officials from dozens of states urged lawmakers to reject the legislation. A letter to House members from the Association of Food and Drug Officials, which includes state and local health officials, said the bill “would significantly impede resolution of unsafe conditions and removal of contaminated foods from the human food supply.”

The National Association of Attorneys General said there was “no evidence” that Proposition 65 “has harmed consumers or merchants.” Lockyer used an expletive to describe Rogers, the Michigan Republican, in a news conference Tuesday.